If memory serves the P-400's were further handicaped initialy by not having functioning oxygen equipment so they were limited to I beleave a 10K ceiling.
I to have read several acounts of Bettys hitting targets from 25K, or their abouts.
I do beelave that the higher alts you use your planes at the higher your operational damage will be.
Altitude effect for CAP...
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
-
Howard Mitchell
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:41 am
- Location: Blighty
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
ORIGINAL: Brady
If memory serves the P-400's were further handicaped initialy by not having functioning oxygen equipment so they were limited to I beleave a 10K ceiling.
The P-400 was a version of the P-39 made to meet a British order, and so had connections for British oxygen cylinders. Not surprisingly, these were in short supply in the Pacific. Given that and a lack of a supercharger their high altitude performance was handicapped to say the least.
While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.
General Sir William Slim
General Sir William Slim
-
Howard Mitchell
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:41 am
- Location: Blighty
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
...my question is how big is percentage of those missions in total number of all missions flown by all sides (i.e. was it 0.1%, 5% or 50%)?
Were aircraft (and crews) involved in those missions "special" or just ordinary (i.e. flying all kind of missions and not hand picked)?
I don't have any figures for the whole war, but high altitude operations impose penalties that airforces would not accept unless there was a good reason to do so. So, during the Guadalcanal campaign the Japanese often operated at high altitude, sacrificing bombing accuracy for the extra protection from fighters and AAA that height gave them.
Without re-reading Lundstrom I cannot be sure, but from memory the majority of the raids were flown around 25,000 feet or above. These missions were flown by normal Japanese naval aviators (which in 1942 meant well trained ones).
While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.
General Sir William Slim
General Sir William Slim
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
Looks like you're right on troposphere...
I’m not sure but it probably does thru combined calculation of endurance and climb characteristics. Besides, if your CAP is too low your planes do not have enough time to climb for successful intercept during the combat impulse, when additional CAP scrambles on radar-equipped base during initial impulse it too can be too late because of insufficient climb rate to intercept high altitude raid. Time to get on assigned altitude is always enough, since CAP is being launch at the start of every phase.
Low flying aircraft always suffer from high fuel consumption, cause they have to use rich gasoline mixture, while aircraft flying high use poor mixture and save fuel. The main goal is to fly on most acceptable, in terms of fuel consumption, altitude. It depends on type of a engine and supercharger. Fuel amount needed to climb on that altitude is generally lower than amount of fuel wasted while flying below that altitude, of course this is right if target area is not very close to airbase. Aircraft at 20,000 ft always can travel further than aircraft flying at 100ft.
If your a/c have excellent climb rate and endurance it can be a serious advantage when fighting on high altitude.
Even if accept your approach this eliminates only technical problem, not tactical. Thus you turn air combat into the trivial calculation of characteristics of a/c and pilots, no environmental factors evolved.
Well, don’t use shallow dive if so. US bombers had no serious problems to maintain formation at high altitudes. It depends on what you’re flying and what’s your goal.
With poor dive speed or with high dive speed it always better to be above than below, some fighter types are better here some are not, but altitude advantage as most important factor remains.
It’s not only Bergerud, absolute majority of authors also. In autumn 1942 IJN Betties were usually bombing static targets from 22,000-26,000 ft., and were awfully inaccurate. Low altitudes daylight raids were rare actually. One of the well-known IJN tactical mistakes.
I highly recommend it to you.
Depends on the year. I believe, it’s only my opinion, ~25% in 1942 everywhere in South Pacific, in 1943 ~50% over the Solomons and ~10-15% over Papua. Never saw any statistics on this case, but I can make my own conclusions.
Zero began to lose its outstanding maneuverability when flying above 15,000 ft. In 1942 this Zero design trade-off did not really matter cause Allied crafts did not do very well that high also, especially P-39 and P-40, worse than Zero in fact, and Japanese pilots, which were aware of this, were trying to fly above to get initiative in combat.
When 2nd generation of US fighters, very able crafts on high altitudes, arrived to South Pacific, Japanese pilots faced principle dilemma, either give altitude advantage to US fighters and engage them much lower to get best of remaining benefit of superior maneuverability on lower altitudes, but at extremely unfavorable tactical position, or climb even higher to engage Americans where their new machines had greater performance but on equal tactical positions. Both variants were dangerous. But P-38s boom’n’zoom tactics had clearly shown that lack of good battle position is more dangerous than inferior performance of Japanese fighters and from spring ’43 Zeros were sighted above 25,000- 28,000 ft. more and more often.
However, air combat is not tied to a certain altitude, initial altitude just set starting layout. Well-executed air battle that began with trim formation in good battle position at altitudes above 20,000 ft. often ended, even if the things went well, with aircraft scattered across the sky at low levels and often alone. Typical example: 13th May ’43. Zeros from 6th Daitai bounced VMF-124 Corsairs over Russells. Although Corsairs were patrolling slightly above 20,000 ft, monitoring situation below. Zero attacked, diving out of the sun from 25,000 ft. In the first pass Zeros shot down several F4Us including major Gise, flight leader, battle ended at sea level altitude. As Ryoji Ohara remembered initial altitude on that mission was 31,000 ft (!). There are many memoirs of Japanese South Pacific veterans, studied by Henry Sakaida, describing japanese attempts to use extreme altitudes to counter US technical and numerical superiority in 1943.
I used this tactics in UV, and with current air combat model, it seems to be the most effective, Zero CAP flying at 30,000 ft. have slightly more chances to succeed in combat against Hellcats and Corsairs. This eliminates constant US bouncing of Zero formations with that never ending “******A6M3 Zero destroyed” message. Best result was 1:3 ratio, in US favor, of course, but this not usual 1:8 when CAP is below 20,000ft.
What do you mean special? Oxygen mask with 2-5 ltr. tank and ‘winter’ flying uniform is everything that needed for high altitude flying. Even Japanese had electrically warmed flying suits and goggles.
I’m not arguing with this, house rules help to simulate warfare more historically accurate. I’m using set of 10-15 rules myself. I’m just against 20000ft limit.
#1
The UV (and I presume WitP) does not take into account the time aircraft need to climb to altitude.
I’m not sure but it probably does thru combined calculation of endurance and climb characteristics. Besides, if your CAP is too low your planes do not have enough time to climb for successful intercept during the combat impulse, when additional CAP scrambles on radar-equipped base during initial impulse it too can be too late because of insufficient climb rate to intercept high altitude raid. Time to get on assigned altitude is always enough, since CAP is being launch at the start of every phase.
This is very long process (especially in very humid South Pacific) that burns lot of fuel. As result burned fuel means that range is (severly) impaired. But in our UV (and I presume WitP) that's not taken into account. Aircraft have 100% same range when they fly at 100 ft or at 30000 ft.
Low flying aircraft always suffer from high fuel consumption, cause they have to use rich gasoline mixture, while aircraft flying high use poor mixture and save fuel. The main goal is to fly on most acceptable, in terms of fuel consumption, altitude. It depends on type of a engine and supercharger. Fuel amount needed to climb on that altitude is generally lower than amount of fuel wasted while flying below that altitude, of course this is right if target area is not very close to airbase. Aircraft at 20,000 ft always can travel further than aircraft flying at 100ft.
#2
Most, if not all, aircraft (except those built on purpose) have extremely sluggish response and performance at high altitudes.
When flying is hard combat is even more difficult...
Except for penalty for P-39 and P-400 (they have no turbocharger) when flying above 10000 ft (by deducting 1 point for maneuverability for ach 1000 ft) I think there is no other penalty for any other aircraft in UV (and I presume WitP).
All those aircraft can fight the same (we were never told otherwise) at 100 ft and at 1000 ft and at 20000 ft and at 30000 ft.
If your a/c have excellent climb rate and endurance it can be a serious advantage when fighting on high altitude.
Therefore with introduction of altitude limit (albeit artificial) we help fixing this problem by allowing oly "optimum" altitudes.
Even if accept your approach this eliminates only technical problem, not tactical. Thus you turn air combat into the trivial calculation of characteristics of a/c and pilots, no environmental factors evolved.
#3
Altitude is advantage for both bombers and fighters. I agree.
Bombers are protected by altitude and can make shallow dives to increase speed (favorite technique of Germans over England in WWII).
Fighters diving from above have advantage.
But both described tactics have serious drawbacks as well...
Bombers have very hard time in shallow high speed dive to accurately line up and bomb.
Fighters have limits in dive speeds (especially true for early Zero models).
Well, don’t use shallow dive if so. US bombers had no serious problems to maintain formation at high altitudes. It depends on what you’re flying and what’s your goal.
With poor dive speed or with high dive speed it always better to be above than below, some fighter types are better here some are not, but altitude advantage as most important factor remains.
#4
OK, Bergerud lists that there was high altitude Japanese raids.
It’s not only Bergerud, absolute majority of authors also. In autumn 1942 IJN Betties were usually bombing static targets from 22,000-26,000 ft., and were awfully inaccurate. Low altitudes daylight raids were rare actually. One of the well-known IJN tactical mistakes.
I don't have that book but do not wish to question it in any way (i.e. I agree with you and accept the info in it).
I highly recommend it to you.
But my question is how big is percentage of those missions in total number of all missions flown by all sides (i.e. was it 0.1%, 5% or 50%)?
Depends on the year. I believe, it’s only my opinion, ~25% in 1942 everywhere in South Pacific, in 1943 ~50% over the Solomons and ~10-15% over Papua. Never saw any statistics on this case, but I can make my own conclusions.
Zero began to lose its outstanding maneuverability when flying above 15,000 ft. In 1942 this Zero design trade-off did not really matter cause Allied crafts did not do very well that high also, especially P-39 and P-40, worse than Zero in fact, and Japanese pilots, which were aware of this, were trying to fly above to get initiative in combat.
When 2nd generation of US fighters, very able crafts on high altitudes, arrived to South Pacific, Japanese pilots faced principle dilemma, either give altitude advantage to US fighters and engage them much lower to get best of remaining benefit of superior maneuverability on lower altitudes, but at extremely unfavorable tactical position, or climb even higher to engage Americans where their new machines had greater performance but on equal tactical positions. Both variants were dangerous. But P-38s boom’n’zoom tactics had clearly shown that lack of good battle position is more dangerous than inferior performance of Japanese fighters and from spring ’43 Zeros were sighted above 25,000- 28,000 ft. more and more often.
However, air combat is not tied to a certain altitude, initial altitude just set starting layout. Well-executed air battle that began with trim formation in good battle position at altitudes above 20,000 ft. often ended, even if the things went well, with aircraft scattered across the sky at low levels and often alone. Typical example: 13th May ’43. Zeros from 6th Daitai bounced VMF-124 Corsairs over Russells. Although Corsairs were patrolling slightly above 20,000 ft, monitoring situation below. Zero attacked, diving out of the sun from 25,000 ft. In the first pass Zeros shot down several F4Us including major Gise, flight leader, battle ended at sea level altitude. As Ryoji Ohara remembered initial altitude on that mission was 31,000 ft (!). There are many memoirs of Japanese South Pacific veterans, studied by Henry Sakaida, describing japanese attempts to use extreme altitudes to counter US technical and numerical superiority in 1943.
I used this tactics in UV, and with current air combat model, it seems to be the most effective, Zero CAP flying at 30,000 ft. have slightly more chances to succeed in combat against Hellcats and Corsairs. This eliminates constant US bouncing of Zero formations with that never ending “******A6M3 Zero destroyed” message. Best result was 1:3 ratio, in US favor, of course, but this not usual 1:8 when CAP is below 20,000ft.
Were aircraft (and crews) involved in those missions "special" or just ordinary (i.e. flying all kind of missions and not hand picked)?
What do you mean special? Oxygen mask with 2-5 ltr. tank and ‘winter’ flying uniform is everything that needed for high altitude flying. Even Japanese had electrically warmed flying suits and goggles.
c) Conclusion
In UV (And WitP) we can choose to use our forces any way we want. We can do whatever we want and for many things that were, let's say it politely, ahistorical, we will not be punished.
I’m not arguing with this, house rules help to simulate warfare more historically accurate. I’m using set of 10-15 rules myself. I’m just against 20000ft limit.
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
ORIGINAL: Brady
I do beelave that the higher alts you use your planes at the higher your operational damage will be.
I can’t say for sure but I think this is right. I have also noticed that higher you fly the less number of a/c arrive to target, I can be wrong here too, of course.
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
ORIGINAL: jmkas
Well, while everyone is figuring out how high the fighting went....on a related note is there any way to intercept recon (photo) missions with your base CAP? I have had hundreds of recon missions flown against my bases, and I have had all sorts of CAP up with just about every combination of fatigue, morale, experience and altitudes...but I have never ever engaged a photo recon mission. Is there some sort of trick? Do they fly too high for the CAP (thats why I posted it here...the height thing!) [:D]
Joe
It’s hard to shot down reconing a/c even if CAP is really huge, but more they fly more chances to bring them down. If your opponent send many bombers on recon missions on daily basis, it’s hard to figure out, how many of those were shot down or damage by flak or CAP, since there is no specific combat report. Specialized recon aircraft losses is much easier subject to monitor.
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
Hi all,
Yep... 100% true (I was saying the verys ame thing).
But in UV (and WitP) this does _NOT_ play any difference - aircraft range is same regardless of chosen altitude...
Yes... but the UV game engine does not use maneuverability depending on altitude (except for previous mentioned P-39 and P-400)...
If that would be used (i.e. create simple performance table for each aircraft in game) it would solve all problems (and that would eliminate the need for "House Rules")!
Leo "Apollo11"
ORIGINAL: Subchaser
Low flying aircraft always suffer from high fuel consumption, cause they have to use rich gasoline mixture, while aircraft flying high use poor mixture and save fuel. The main goal is to fly on most acceptable, in terms of fuel consumption, altitude. It depends on type of a engine and supercharger. Fuel amount needed to climb on that altitude is generally lower than amount of fuel wasted while flying below that altitude, of course this is right if target area is not very close to airbase. Aircraft at 20,000 ft always can travel further than aircraft flying at 100ft.
Yep... 100% true (I was saying the verys ame thing).
But in UV (and WitP) this does _NOT_ play any difference - aircraft range is same regardless of chosen altitude...
Even if accept your approach this eliminates only technical problem, not tactical. Thus you turn air combat into the trivial calculation of characteristics of a/c and pilots, no environmental factors evolved.
Yes... but the UV game engine does not use maneuverability depending on altitude (except for previous mentioned P-39 and P-400)...
If that would be used (i.e. create simple performance table for each aircraft in game) it would solve all problems (and that would eliminate the need for "House Rules")!
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
I thought the maximum altitude you could set in the game was 20.000 feet???
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=413785
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I thought the maximum altitude you could set in the game was 20.000 feet???
Are you kidding? Climb higher man!
-
mariovalleemtl
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Montreal
- Contact:
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
U.V. engine is a big black magic secret box and all misunderstands come from that.
Look, for exemple, at Korsum Pocket. You have accect to all tables and charts involve in combats, movements, etc. In U.V. everything is a behind closes doors. Why that ?
Everytime we dabate on topic like this one it's because we don't have accect to the (complex) tables the designers use to resolve those situation. A vs B = C .
And here we go; -''Historicaly, the zero did this and not that. B-17 should do...''.
U.V. is a outstanding game and I am sure the ''black box'' is very well done. My question is why Matrix Games don't publish those tables ? It will be very helpful to understand why, for exempl, we should put ower CAP at this altitude in that situation.
mario
Look, for exemple, at Korsum Pocket. You have accect to all tables and charts involve in combats, movements, etc. In U.V. everything is a behind closes doors. Why that ?
Everytime we dabate on topic like this one it's because we don't have accect to the (complex) tables the designers use to resolve those situation. A vs B = C .
And here we go; -''Historicaly, the zero did this and not that. B-17 should do...''.
U.V. is a outstanding game and I am sure the ''black box'' is very well done. My question is why Matrix Games don't publish those tables ? It will be very helpful to understand why, for exempl, we should put ower CAP at this altitude in that situation.
mario
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
Oh my gosh I really feel stupid. I have been playing the game forever and I figured since the last altitude button only went to 20.000 feet that was the max for all aircraft. Now I see you have to press the other previous buttons to increase altitude in smaller increments. Wow Im going to crawl back into a hole now....
Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=413785
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
ORIGINAL: Mario Vallée
U.V. engine is a big black magic secret box and all misunderstands come from that.
Look, for exemple, at Korsum Pocket. You have accect to all tables and charts involve in combats, movements, etc. In U.V. everything is a behind closes doors. Why that ?
Everytime we dabate on topic like this one it's because we don't have accect to the (complex) tables the designers use to resolve those situation. A vs B = C .
And here we go; -''Historicaly, the zero did this and not that. B-17 should do...''.
U.V. is a outstanding game and I am sure the ''black box'' is very well done. My question is why Matrix Games don't publish those tables ? It will be very helpful to understand why, for exempl, we should put ower CAP at this altitude in that situation.
mario
NO! Matrix please don't do that. Publishing exact tables would have two immediate consequences:
1.) Incessant bitching by those who "know better"
2.) Ruining the game for the reast of us, because we'd lose the "trial and error" factor
"Publishing the tables" is among the principal reasons why I hate John Tillers games for instance. Because: a) I see how shallow and unrealistic his formulas are, and b) it ruins the enjoyment of the game if I can calculate everything in advance with mathematical precision. Real commanders couldn't do that.
And I absolutely HATE Korsun Pocket's result table along with small dices in the corner. Though, to be true, KP is overall a very good game, unlike those by Tiller (just my personal opinion, no flames please).
There are many among us who actually prefer the "black box" model. Real war was black box. You experimented with various values and you got to some conclusions. In UV you can experiment with ones and Zeros (pun intended), ie with 1s and 0s, ie in digital domain, without risking lives. So, experiment, try this and try that, and come to your own conclusion.
O.
-
mariovalleemtl
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Montreal
- Contact:
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
I am sorry Oleg to see that you don't agree with the fact of dices bringing F.O.W. in wargaming. Black box major problem is the difficuty to improuved the data base because only the designers could change anythink. Tables in this games are very complex. X planes attack Y planes at Z altitude in this waether, that fatigue, etc. All that with a touch of luck. Because you know, when a CA fire at a other CA at max range, the chance to get a hit are very low. This is what the ''dices'' (or %) are for.
I like games where I could change tables when I dont agree with the desision of the designers. It is not a question here of controling everythink. With good tables, the F.O.W. and the luck do the rest. Voila.
mario
I like games where I could change tables when I dont agree with the desision of the designers. It is not a question here of controling everythink. With good tables, the F.O.W. and the luck do the rest. Voila.
mario
-
SouthernAP
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:18 am
- Location: Haze Grey and Underway
RE: Altitude effect for CAP...
[:-]ORIGINAL: Mario Vallée
I like games where I could change tables when I dont agree with the desision of the designers. It is not a question here of controling everythink. With good tables, the F.O.W. and the luck do the rest. Voila.
mario
If my faulty memory serves me right there is a famous quote about the way the Japanese wargamed the Midway operation and how the umpires ruled out luck on behalf of the opposing side and this allowed the Japanese side to win the game. The umpires did this to appease thier senior commanders. Historically the changes made during the game actually occured during the real life battle.